Conformism: Conformism is a term used to describe the suspension of an individual's self-determined actions or opinions in favour of obedience to the mandates or conventions of one's peer-group, or deference to the imposed norms of a supervening authority.

The reason conformism is not science is because it denies the action of allowing one to follow where the evidence leads. Saying that science is only about natural things is an example.

Naturalism: (philosophy) the doctrine that the world can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations.

Putting boundaries or restrictions on finding truth by following where the evidence leads is to ensure that only one type of truth is the only truth that will "ever" be found.

And even though evolutionists try and call their idea free thought, conformism proves that it is not. Making rules that ensure that the only evidence accepted will always support evolution (naturalism), also ensures that the only assumed truth will always be evolution.

How many evolutionists here have ever made the statement: Science is not about proving the supernatural, only the natural?

What do you think that means when there are restrictions like that making boundaries on what science will and will not do? What science will and will not even consider as evidence?

The proof also of this is the objective of 99% of the evolutionists who join this forum. Do you want creationist to conform, or find truth? If it's truth you want us to find, then you would have to weigh our evidence on the same level playing field as your own. But that's not going to happen, now is it?

Conformism: Conformism is a term used to describe the suspension of an individual's self-determined actions or opinions in favour of obedience to the mandates or conventions of one's peer-group, or deference to the imposed norms of a supervening authority.

Resistance is futile! Be assimilated or be shunned and ridiculed as uninformed and ignorant!

I doubt any evolutionist will try to address this because they can see how many corners they can paint themselves into with no way out. It's ironic how their inactions actually show that they even know the truth about this but are unwilling to face it.

I can say that the people working is science that I know of, including myself try to escape a dogmatic approach that assumes we know the answer and that we must fit our observations with a set and conformist framework. We find that data that does not fit with the assumed models. Ignoring the problem does not make it go away and significantly we may be applying a wrong model. Yes, there are times when we lack courage and go along with an explanation because to do so is easier and will not be questioned. But this can lead to costly errors. I went along with a fault interpretation every one favored. A new worker saw the folly and I could see he was correct and the more experienced workers incorrect.

I studied fossils in my thesis. I followed where they led me, and they changed in an order that I found had been published elsewhere from thousands of miles away. I followed an objective procedure.

I don't know any scientists in my circle who talk about seeking only the natural. Many things known to be "natural" today were once thought to be supernatural in nature. Our understanding of what was actually the scientific basis for many phenomena came from not restricting study in any way, and coming to an understanding that way. You make false assumptions about scientists in my opinion.

I disagree that all "truth" is of the same value. This is true of non-creationist research as well. Some studies are poorly done with poor conclusions not really proven in the data obtained. I think there should be an equal playing field for research that follows the same rigor and stands up to the same challenges from others with knowledge in the field. In my opinion 99% of all who post on either side of this subject are not looking to change their minds. It does not mean that it can't happen, just that it is very unlikely. I weigh all evidence against what I personally have encountered, or what I can find from others that have done relevant studies. That is what I attempt to do with creationist evidence. So far I have found major holes in most of these studies in which I have background knowledge.

approach that assumes we know the answer and that we must fit our observations with a set and conformist framework. We find that data that does not fit with the assumed models. Ignoring the problem does not make it go away and significantly we may be applying a wrong model. Yes, there are times when we lack courage and go along with an explanation because to do so is easier and will not be questioned. But this can lead to costly errors. I went along with a fault interpretation every one favored. A new worker saw the folly and I could see he was correct and the more experienced workers incorrect.

I studied fossils in my thesis. I followed where they led me, and they changed in an order that I found had been published elsewhere from thousands of miles away. I followed an objective procedure.

I don't know any scientists in my circle who talk about seeking only the natural. Many things known to be "natural" today were once thought to be supernatural in nature. Our understanding of what was actually the scientific basis for many phenomena came from not restricting study in any way, and coming to an understanding that way. You make false assumptions about scientists in my opinion.

I disagree that all "truth" is of the same value. This is true of non-creationist research as well. Some studies are poorly done with poor conclusions not really proven in the data obtained. I think there should be an equal playing field for research that follows the same rigor and stands up to the same challenges from others with knowledge in the field. In my opinion 99% of all who post on either side of this subject are not looking to change their minds. It does not mean that it can't happen, just that it is very unlikely. I weigh all evidence against what I personally have encountered, or what I can find from others that have done relevant studies. That is what I attempt to do with creationist evidence. So far I have found major holes in most of these studies in which I have background knowledge.

The problem I have with pseudo science (evolutionary science) is that they have become dogmatic true believers about what they believe. What makes them a religion is that they Ã¢â‚¬Å“believeÃ¢â‚¬Â that they are absolutely categorically unflinchingly absolutely right. Many atheists were former Ã¢â‚¬Å“religiousÃ¢â‚¬Â people who left one dogmatic rigid ideology for another (with really no change in their core philosophical point iof view).

Most evoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s I run into are really anti-God. Dawkins is an accurate example of someone that is quick to be anti-God. He describes a mean cruel God and since God does not exist (according to him) he fails to realize that he is describing himselfÃ¢â‚¬â€his description of God is what Dawkins would be like if you crossed him. His contempt for anyone made in his image that disagrees and with his ideas is exemplary of all to many atheist evo scientists that are psychologically violentÃ¢â‚¬â€ terrorists.

So many of the atheist evo scientists come across as seeming to think that there absolutely could not have been an intelligent being that created us. That is in my opinion controlling to the hilt! They sure are a far cry less humble than the affectionat humble carpenter of Galilee who came to bring the concept of love to us=and appreciation of everyone even our enemies.

The problem I have with pseudo science (evolutionary science) is that they have become dogmatic true believers about what they believe. What makes them a religion is that they Ã¢â‚¬Å“believeÃ¢â‚¬Â that they are absolutely categorically unflinchingly absolutely right. Many atheists were former Ã¢â‚¬Å“religiousÃ¢â‚¬Â people who left one dogmatic rigid ideology for another (with really no change in their core philosophical point iof view).

Most evoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s I run into are really anti-God. Dawkins is an accurate example of someone that is quick to be anti-God. He describes a mean cruel God and since God does not exist (according to him) he fails to realize that he is describing himselfÃ¢â‚¬â€his description of God is what Dawkins would be like if you crossed him. His contempt for anyone made in his image that disagrees and with his ideas is exemplary of all to many atheist evo scientists that are psychologically violentÃ¢â‚¬â€ terrorists.

So many of the atheist evo scientists come across as seeming to think that there absolutely could not have been an intelligent being that created us. That is in my opinion controlling to the hilt! They sure are a far cry less humble than the affectionat humble carpenter of Galilee who came to bring the concept of love to us=and appreciation of everyone even our enemies.

.

I would alter what you have said in that most scientists involved in evolutionary science are not conducting pseudo-science, it is the real McCoy using proper methods. They do not "believe" they are correct in saying that it occurred because there is overwhelming evidence that has been found to support the concept, so their claim is one that comes from knowledge.

There are many such as Dawkins that accept evolution and are atheists, even to the point of being anti-God as he appears to be, but amongst public figures who speak on the subject he is in a minority. I do not agree with your claim of psychological violence....even for Dawkins, let alone other evolutionary scientists. He is simply a bit arrogant at times.

Scientists have been unable to find or detect scientific evidence that God exists. Some will make a claim that there could not be an intelligent being that was involved in our creation, but they have no evidence that would exclude such a possibility, just no evidence to indicated this was the case. I do not see how this is "controlling" at all as it does not preclude a vast number of scientists, including myself, that hold to a different opinion. I think just about all of us posting on this board, both of us included by the substance of some of our posts, are far less humble than Christ.

I would alter what you have said in that most scientists involved in evolutionary science are not conducting pseudo-science, it is the real McCoy using proper methods. They do not "believe" they are correct in saying that it occurred because there is overwhelming evidence that has been found to support the concept, so their claim is one that comes from knowledge.

There are many such as Dawkins that accept evolution and are atheists, even to the point of being anti-God as he appears to be, but amongst public figures who speak on the subject he is in a minority. I do not agree with your claim of psychological violence....even for Dawkins, let alone other evolutionary scientists. He is simply a bit arrogant at times.

Scientists have been unable to find or detect scientific evidence that God exists. Some will make a claim that there could not be an intelligent being that was involved in our creation, but they have no evidence that would exclude such a possibility, just no evidence to indicated this was the case. I do not see how this is "controlling" at all as it does not preclude a vast number of scientists, including myself, that hold to a different opinion. I think just about all of us posting on this board, both of us included by the substance of some of our posts, are far less humble than Christ.

Firstly let me thank you for being so Ã¢â‚¬Å“patientÃ¢â‚¬Â with me. I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think you are psychologically violent. Secondly, I have wanted to put the following theories to an Ã¢â‚¬Å“honestÃ¢â‚¬Â scientist to see what they think? Here goes;I think our misunderstanding comes from having different definitions of the location of information along with misunderstandings of the communication process or system as used by both evo science and lay people.

The current understanding or theory is that there is a transmitter/ receiver with intent or message. This is the originator of communication (you or me). The source or transmitter/ receiver is always intelligent. Personally, I have never observed it any other way. There are communication lines such as the Internet and the alphabet or black-and-white symbols that we use (digital data of sorts). In our case, we are using (English code) to communicate with each other.

Many languages use Ã¢â‚¬Å“ArabicÃ¢â‚¬Â symbols, 6,7 , 8, etc., instead of Roman Numerals VI, vII vIII, as they are mathematically more functional. As such, we do not need to Ã¢â‚¬Å“translateÃ¢â‚¬Â Arabic numbers as they "evoke" te same meaning in our minds.

According to the reigning theory, Ã¢â‚¬Å“informationÃ¢â‚¬Â is coded and sent out over communication lines. No one asks why information has to be coded? Why not send information over the communication lines without coding it?

Ã¢â‚¬Å“CodeÃ¢â‚¬Â has been said to be a temporary storage place for information until it gets to its destination. There, another receiver/ transmitter (also intelligent) detects the code and removes the message stored in the code and thus communication has taken place. Information is increased in the receiver/ transmitter.

I am saying the current theory is wrongÃ¢â‚¬â€that code actually does not store information but rather evokes ( or serves as a stimuli) for the receiver. Information is actually stored in the mind with a previously agreed on meaning. It is a mental state. Therefore, evidence (another name for code) does not contain information it evokes information stored in the mind.That is why I say ther is no information stored in a bookÃ¢â‚¬â€just code. One has to "read" a book. Moreover there is no information stored in "evidence" since 'evidence" is "code" and in a physical and not mental state.

Here is how I demonstrate my Ã¢â‚¬Å“newÃ¢â‚¬Â theory of communication. I constructed a thought experiment. LetÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s look at the word rit (phonetic pronunciation of the word as right=long Ã¢â‚¬Å“IÃ¢â‚¬Â). There are several meanings associated in our minds to this sound (rit). In this case, to most of us, code appears in two forms, visual and audible. As audible code rit can take on several meanings such as rite, wright, write, right (correct) and right (direction). To demonstrate this I constructed the following sentence; Ã¢â‚¬Å“Write the right spelling of the word Ã¢â‚¬Å“riteÃ¢â‚¬Â on the right side of your paper." If someone says the sentence out loud our mind assigns correct meaning to all the sounds except the second to the last Ã¢â‚¬Å“ritÃ¢â‚¬Â (rite) It flags the sentence in our mind to ask which Ã¢â‚¬Å“ritÃ¢â‚¬Â to spell? There is no error that occurs in the written sentence even though the sentence might not make sense in that the answer is given. It would not be a spelling test (lol). Otherwise it woul be just a simple requesr to do something. If the sounds (audible code) had meaning stored in it, how could the same sounds (code) be Ã¢â‚¬Å“understoodÃ¢â‚¬Â so differently? More is in play tahn one sound one meaningÃ¢â‚¬â€that would be ambiguous?

Code is assigned or associated to meaning by agreement in a learning process (usually as a child). We say the average person has a 10,000 word vocabulary of visual code & ("&"= "and"--see what i mean?) audible. Different symbols ofte evoke the same the same meaning. Vidual & audible sound is previously associated to meaning in their mind! Thereafter, there is an unstated agreement that exists between the transmitter/ receiver and the destination receiver/ transmitter as to meaning to evoke from the sound or visual code.

If my Ã¢â‚¬Å“newÃ¢â‚¬Â theory is correct, it would certainly have a dramatic effect on how Ã¢â‚¬Å“evidenceÃ¢â‚¬Â (code) is viewed. It would demonstrate the bias of both of the receiver/ transmitters and the previous agreement made between them (insider trading).

WhatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s more, evo science claims the first transmitter/ receiver is not necessary on the biological planeÃ¢â‚¬â€even though they infer that DNA code has more than chemical meaning and contains the Ã¢â‚¬Å“informationÃ¢â‚¬Â ( I guess by sequence) to build a particular animal. What is the second receiver/ transmitter? What Ã¢â‚¬Å“readsÃ¢â‚¬Â the Code to build the Ã¢â‚¬Å“codedÃ¢â‚¬Â animalÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s body and animate it? It seems to me that only intelligence on the receiver's end could accomplish that task? Could whatever life is be the culprit?

So here is what I suggest happened; Darwin and evo scientists formed an agreement ( I would like to add the modifier neurotic to agreement but, I will skip that for this explanation. Oh dear me, did I add it by saying thisÃ¢â‚¬â€ahhhh my own bias--a paradox.

Darwin agreed with others including evo scientists (mostly atheists at the time) to view code (evidence) to "prove" that evolution was true. I have no other words than to say Darwin created an explanation and he and others agreed to Ã¢â‚¬Å“believeÃ¢â‚¬Â it--give it the meaning he defined in his mind.

Maybe it I can penetrate your resistance by giving the following example. The statement is; Ã¢â‚¬Å“Whatever we define as real will be real and its consequence.Ã¢â‚¬Â Suppose you think there is a bogeyman on the other side of the door and you don't want to have an encounter with a bogeyman. If you don't open the door, you won't have the deal with the bogeyman. You see, it matters very little whether there is a bogeyman or not on the other side of the door. The effect is the same. If you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t want to confront the chance of a bogeyman period, all you have to do is not open the door.

The bottom line is evoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s and creatives are both creative but all to many evo scientists want to Ã¢â‚¬Å“pretendÃ¢â‚¬Â they are not. Meaning exists when we give evidence (code) meaning in our minds and others cooperate to create the same meaning in theirrr mind--this process creates an opposing point of view to conflict with others who define "code" (evidence) differently. The code is the same but the human mind turns it into evidence that proves what its creator wants it to. Now that's bias. I am aware of my bias. Evo scientist want to label their biased "code" (information) deserves "absolute truth status"--which ultimately infers they cannot be wrong.

I still see no proof that evolution is not conformism. Only an attempt to derail 2 threads by not answering the question here.

You see every time an evolutionist makes fun of a creationist for what they believe, that is trying to make the other person conform. Believe as we do, or be stupid.

So by that comment, and ones like it. You make 2 peer groups.

1) The smart ones conform and believe in evolution.2) The stupid ones reject conformism and believe in creation.

you linking to that anti-YEC site is a great example. Because unless we YECs conform, then we fit everything that site says right? Because if we believed as you it would not apply, right? Conformism.

I really don't ever expect you to ever allow that evolution is not always conformism. I don't think the post of anyone will satisfy your thinking on this subject no matter how lucid or brilliantly a post might be made for you are too much in the habit of conforming to this usual perception by creationists of what the scientists involved in research about evolution are up to and all about.

I answered in response to your derailing a different thread where instead of answering my post you replied with a request that I answer the "challenge" you made in this thread. Since your request was made to me there, and I was not posting here, I answered your challenge in that thread. Your request was off-topic in that other thread, and certainly was changing the direction of the conversation there, but I complied anyway. I then came here when Ron was indicating the "sound of crickets"... I don't see how my responding directly to your OP is derailing this thread at all. There are two threads where I have posted my thoughts that address your "challenge" and this is the other one.

I don't know what you are about in the rest of your post. I did not do as you outline here. I did not make fun of creationists and I did not link to any anti-creationist sites in the thread in question. If you are talking about the other thread I linked to two "pro-creationist" sites there. The last time I am aware that I linked to a site that could be called "anti-creationist" was a week ago in a different thread about a different subject altogether. Even then I just copied a link to a page that had been posted by someone else at an earlier time and was very appropriate to the discussion at hand. It did not mock creationists, it just set the record straight about a false creationist claim involving geology. I didn't even notice that the page was at an "anti-creationist site" until a couple of days later

Sorry, it has been a long day and I don't intend to get agitated by your apparent attempt to "enliven" this conversation. I guess it is easy to see why there have not been other responses by "evolutionists" to your challenge. The example of how my honestly-given post has been treated is unlikely to encourage anybody else to do so.

I really don't ever expect you to ever allow that evolution is not always conformism. I don't think the post of anyone will satisfy your thinking on this subject no matter how lucid or brilliantly a post might be made for you are too much in the habit of conforming to this usual perception by creationists of what the scientists involved in research about evolution are up to and all about.

Another example of conformism. Either believe in scientific research or ....

I answered in response to your derailing a different thread where instead of answering my post you replied with a request that I answer the "challenge" you made in this thread. Since your request was made to me there, and I was not posting here, I answered your challenge in that thread. Your request was off-topic in that other thread, and certainly was changing the direction of the conversation there, but I complied anyway. I then came here when Ron was indicating the "sound of crickets"... I don't see how my responding directly to your OP is derailing this thread at all. There are two threads where I have posted my thoughts that address your "challenge" and this is the other one.

If you would have answered here there would have been no derail.

I don't know what you are about in the rest of your post. I did not do as you outline here. I did not make fun of creationists and I did not link to any anti-creationist sites in the thread in question. If you are talking about the other thread I linked to two "pro-creationist" sites there. The last time I am aware that I linked to a site that could be called "anti-creationist" was a week ago in a different thread about a different subject altogether. Even then I just copied a link to a page that had been posted by someone else at an earlier time and was very appropriate to the discussion at hand. It did not mock creationists, it just set the record straight about a false creationist claim involving geology. I didn't even notice that the page was at an "anti-creationist site" until a couple of days later

If so, you should read what you link to. But I think you are smarter than that.

Sorry, it has been a long day and I don't intend to get agitated by your apparent attempt to "enliven" this conversation. I guess it is easy to see why there have not been other responses by "evolutionists" to your challenge. The example of how my honestly-given post has been treated is unlikely to encourage anybody else to do so.

Scientists have been unable to find or detect scientific evidence that God exists. Some will make a claim that there could not be an intelligent being that was involved in our creation, but they have no evidence that would exclude such a possibility, just no evidence to indicated this was the case. I do not see how this is "controlling" at all as it does not preclude a vast number of scientists, including myself, that hold to a different opinion. I think just about all of us posting on this board, both of us included by the substance of some of our posts, are far less humble than Christ.

Here is again proof of evo scientists spin. All we have to do is look in the mirror as we are made in God's image--no proof? Like science has been all over the universe looking for God! Nothing like ignoring something right under our nose. So are we intelligent? Do we exist? Is there intelligence in the universe? Are we creators or evolvers? What arrogance to think there could be no one in the universe smarter than us!

Scientists have been unable to find or detect scientific evidence that God exists. Some will make a claim that there could not be an intelligent being that was involved in our creation, but they have no evidence that would exclude such a possibility, just no evidence to indicated this was the case. I do not see how this is "controlling" at all as it does not preclude a vast number of scientists, including myself, that hold to a different opinion. I think just about all of us posting on this board, both of us included by the substance of some of our posts, are far less humble than Christ.

Here is again proof of evo scientists spin. All we have to do is look in the mirror as we are made in God's image--no proof? Like science has been all over the universe looking for God! Nothing like ignoring something right under our nose. So are we intelligent? Do we exist? Is there intelligence in the universe? Are we creators or evolvers? What arrogance to think there could be no one in the universe smarter than us!

The main reason God cannot be detected by science, is the conformism constraint. Is science allowed to "actually" search for the supernatural? If someone in science actually did this and found evidence, would they be praised, or have their credibility destroyed by the humanist-naturalist peer group that controls science?

My experience and observation points to the second one. Science won't find God because they don't want God. Humanism is their god and conformism is how it's promoted.

In regards to Conformism, I agree, there are some instances of that going on. But then again, you can see that in every facet of society. I dont like paying taxes, I dont want to pay them, but i pay them anyways.

The problem arises when we confuse Conformism with Trust. As a practicallity, we cannot go out and test, observe, and experiment every single peice of knowledge that mankind has obtained. Therefore, we are forced to rely on the "say so" of other people who had the resources/knowledge/equipment to do the tests, observations and experiments. This can seem like conformism, but it really isnt, anymore than trusting what your doctor tells you after you had a checkup, is conformism.

In that sense, most scientists will be willing to trust other fellow scientists who have gone through the process of peer-review and have come out spotless, especially if said scientist was outside their own field of expertise.

As for naturalism, I am reminded of an old story my Bio proffessor told us. And here is the gist of it:

(I suppose i should put this in quotes, since it was his story and not mine)
"There is a table with a glass of water, sitting in the middle of the amazon rainforest. Two men are brought in to explain why such a table came to be. One of the two, claims that there must have been a single, or group of men, who brought the table, the glass, and the water, and placed it there, for no apparent reason. The second, claims that there must have been a set of magical faeries that willed the table, and the glass of water into existance, and then dissapeared.

The point of the story, is that while the supernatural is always a possibility, it is unreasonable as an option to any scientist, because it violates the known laws of physics. If there are many explanations, we can choose which explanation has the most evidence to back it up. But if we are choosing between a natural and supernatural explanation, we can reject the supernatural explanation outright, only because something that is supernatural, by its very definition, cannot be examined by science, and therefore cannot be confirmed or falsified."

Although i disagree with one of my proffessors points, which is, that if a supernatural explanation occured in nature, or otherwise affected nature, then, at that point, it has manifested itself in nature and therefore can be examined by science, i suppose it was his long-winded way of saying "Science cannot prove the supernatural, only the natural".

As for Mr Summers information Theory, in a way, yes, i agree. If i send a message that is in english, to someone else, that receiver must have prior knowledge of the english language in order to decode the message. But in regards to the problem that it poses for evolution, i dont find it so. And heres why.

First of all, it is false that both the transmitter AND receiver must be intelligent, in order for a message to be sent. If the receiver alone is intelligent, he can, mistakenly, perceive a message from a source that is simply random, as what happened with the WOW signal previously encountered by the SETI program. I dont think the signal came from intelligent sources, but the person working on the program, being intelligent, has perceived meaning from it.

Secondly, DNA and the decoding of it, is very similar to an atom being split by a neutron in a fission reaction. In fission, a neutron is sent from a source, such as the sun, and the atom is split. So, how does a specific atom "Know" if it is being hit by the correct subatomic particle? It doesnt, because it has to do with chemical reactions, and not any intelligence or sentience on the atom's part.

In regards to Conformism, I agree, there are some instances of that going on. But then again, you can see that in every facet of society. I dont like paying taxes, I dont want to pay them, but i pay them anyways.

The problem arises when we confuse Conformism with Trust. As a practicallity, we cannot go out and test, observe, and experiment every single peice of knowledge that mankind has obtained. Therefore, we are forced to rely on the "say so" of other people who had the resources/knowledge/equipment to do the tests, observations and experiments. This can seem like conformism, but it really isnt, anymore than trusting what your doctor tells you after you had a checkup, is conformism.

Nice post overall. The funny thing is that trust needs to be earned. I don't trust anyone until they earn it.

If scientists as a group have been shown to be untrustworthy... well... I don't trust most MDs. I have an autoimmune disease that would have me cancerous at this point if I didn't go to a Natural Doctor... who has previously earned my trust by ridding me of symptoms that the MDs could do nothing with, or could only mask. It is my opinion that most people trust MDs and ridicule NDs because they do not understand natural medicine or because of conformism. Perhaps a mixture of the two.

Nice post overall. The funny thing is that trust needs to be earned. I don't trust anyone until they earn it.

If scientists as a group have been shown to be untrustworthy... well... I don't trust most MDs. I have an autoimmune disease that would have me cancerous at this point if I didn't go to a Natural Doctor... who has previously earned my trust by ridding me of symptoms that the MDs could do nothing with, or could only mask. It is my opinion that most people trust MDs and ridicule NDs because they do not understand natural medicine or because of conformism. Perhaps a mixture of the two.

I couldnt agree more. Although i do generally trust my family doctor, as i have been going to him since i was 6, im generally sure that there are some honest NDs out there, as there are some honest MDs. My only problem with NDs are the ones who claim to have the "Cure" to everything, and those that are actively out to get their patients to reject normal, standard treatment presented by MDs.

In regards to Conformism, I agree, there are some instances of that going on. But then again, you can see that in every facet of society. I dont like paying taxes, I dont want to pay them, but i pay them anyways.

The problem arises when we confuse Conformism with Trust. As a practicallity, we cannot go out and test, observe, and experiment every single peice of knowledge that mankind has obtained. Therefore, we are forced to rely on the "say so" of other people who had the resources/knowledge/equipment to do the tests, observations and experiments. This can seem like conformism, but it really isnt, anymore than trusting what your doctor tells you after you had a checkup, is conformism.

In that sense, most scientists will be willing to trust other fellow scientists who have gone through the process of peer-review and have come out spotless, especially if said scientist was outside their own field of expertise.

It's easy when the side that agrees is doing the judging.

As for naturalism, I am reminded of an old story my Bio proffessor told us. And here is the gist of it:

(I suppose i should put this in quotes, since it was his story and not mine)"There is a table with a glass of water, sitting in the middle of the amazon rainforest. Two men are brought in to explain why such a table came to be. One of the two, claims that there must have been a single, or group of men, who brought the table, the glass, and the water, and placed it there, for no apparent reason. The second, claims that there must have been a set of magical faeries that willed the table, and the glass of water into existance, and then dissapeared.

The point of the story, is that while the supernatural is always a possibility, it is unreasonable as an option to any scientist, because it violates the known laws of physics. If there are many explanations, we can choose which explanation has the most evidence to back it up. But if we are choosing between a natural and supernatural explanation, we can reject the supernatural explanation outright, only because something that is supernatural, by its very definition, cannot be examined by science, and therefore cannot be confirmed or falsified."

1) It's a story meant to mock any religion.2) If energy cannot be created or destroyed. And our thoughts are basically chemical energy. What do you think happens to it when we die if the energy must always exist? You see even your own laws support the supernatural.3) The reason the word fairies is used, is because it's a word that gets it across how stupid it sounds. Like evolution being a bunch of fairies with blueprints to complex designs. Making it sound stupid does not prove it is wrong scientifically. What it does prove is that scientifically, you really don't have a good argument against it. So you have to use the alternative which is ZERO science. Are fairies scientific? Are magic fairies scientific? So your point is mute and shows how weak your argument really is, even your professors.4) Explain why the supernatural cannot be examined by science?

Although i disagree with one of my proffessors points, which is, that if a supernatural explanation occured in nature, or otherwise affected nature, then, at that point, it has manifested itself in nature and therefore can be examined by science, i suppose it was his long-winded way of saying "Science cannot prove the supernatural, only the natural".

Have you ever heard of Deductive Reasoning? It's where you eliminate everything that won't work, then if anything is left you follow that unto it's conclusion. Which by the way answers the question as to where the matter for the big bang came from. Since something cannot come from nothing, and energy cannot be created (the bang) or destroyed. It only leaves one option. Matter and energy always existed, which means there is an eternal dimension. Problem is, that points to the supernatural so even though it makes more sense than anything so far. It will always be rejected because any credit given unto the supernatural would destroy the natural foundation evolution is built upon.

Questions:

1) Can science prove that the laws that govern "our" universe were always the same?2) Can science prove that there are not other realms, dimensions, or universes where these laws are different?3) And that because there can be different laws, that to ponder a creation under different laws would make the creation unexplainable by current existing laws. How?

The Bible says that death did not come into the world until man sinned. And man did not sin until the end of the sixth day. So for 6 days the laws were different. How?

If you don't die, it also means you don't age.If you don't age, it also means you cannot be born because you would never grow up.If you cannot be born then you have to be created.If you cannot age then when you are created, you are created with age already added.

But what about time?

Because our laws are different we assume that the passing of time always includes age. But time and age are two separate processes during creation before sin.

So you have "age", but not "aging".You have time passing, but it's separate from aging, so your age that you were created with would always stays the same even though time passes.

Then sin changed the laws to what we now see. So when we try to explain creation with the current laws, it does not make sense. But when you apply the laws of what makes eternity eternal, then it makes since. How?

If God creates us (living matter) with age because we would never grow up in the laws before sin, then why not create dead matter with age also? Why create dead matter with age? If the option to sin exists (and it did), and that would change the current eternal laws to non-eternal laws. If God did not create His creation to work under "both" set of laws. It would be a creation that would have been destroyed the moment man sinned. And here's why:

1) God creates a new planet (earth). Man sins and what is a new planet like under our laws? It's molten lava fire ball. Which would have killed everything created. But if He creates it with enough age, then His creation is safe.2) If God creates a new sun, then man sins. What is a new star like under our current laws? Unstable, might put out to little heat or to much. It's gravity pull would be constantly changing. And the solar wind maybe to strong and strip our atmosphere away. But, if God creates a sun aged enough to be stable, then His creation is safe.etc...

So you see creating with age was part of the equation to create. Whether you or anyone else wants to ponder it is your choice. But it pretty much answers everything if you think about it.

And we do weight our own evidence the same way as yours.
Its simply a question of "can you prove it". Now some times this is direct proof, some times its circumstantial.

Now i know you think you are providing this, but so far i haven't seen any. In my experience its either claims that can't be verified or misinterpreting certain observations. I know you'll disagree with me here, but since where not discussing any particular claim of evidence i'll stick to this general statement for now